Strengthen scientific integrity under the Biden administration

doi:10.1126/science.abg0533

GSTDTAP > 气候变化

DOI	10.1126/science.abg0533
	Strengthen scientific integrity under the Biden administration
	Jacob M. Carter; Gretchen T. Goldman; Andrew A. Rosenberg; Genna Reed; Anita Desikan; Taryn MacKinney
	2021-02-12
发表期刊	Science
出版年	2021
英文摘要	At his victory speech on 7 November 2020, U.S. president Joseph R. Biden described that the will of the people was in part to “marshal the forces of science.” He declared that his plans to beat the novel coronavirus would be built on a bedrock of science. On 27 January, the Biden administration issued a presidential memorandum to strengthen scientific integrity and evidence-based decision-making ([ 1 ][1]). These are great steps to bring science back to the table, but the administration still has a lot of work ahead to improve the role of science in government decision-making. The records of abuses of the past 4 years and data from surveys provide evidence that under the Trump administration, scientists were censored, scientific information was ignored, and reports and publications were unduly suppressed—all actions that undermined the appropriate use of science in decision-making processes. This occurred despite many federal agencies already having scientific integrity policies, communications policies, and well-established science advisory systems in place to promote an appropriate role for science in agency decision-making. But from these setbacks, we can draw lessons and suggest a road map for moving forward. The use and misuse, and proper role, of science and scientists in decision-making is a long-standing and debated issue. The process is affected by not only scientific information but also various actors and their values. It is therefore important that all actors involved in this process make transparent their postures (for example, their attitudes or perspectives) to help shield science policy decisions from being overburdened by personal preferences presented as fact. This kind of transparency also allows the public and other officials to observe and engage with the decision process. In the U.S. federal government, science-based decisions are informed by multiple actors, including appointed political positions (such as the heads of agencies), federal scientists, scientific advisory committees composed of academic scholars and industry experts, and the public. Having multiple levels of input into science-based decisions accommodates that science is complex and can be layered with uncertainty. Although all of these stakeholders are important, federal scientists play a key role in producing science that directly informs decisions. At the same time, the U.S. federal government is a system with a high concentration of power in the Executive Branch, which can result in heavy influence from political appointees on science-based decisions according to their values, culture, beliefs, or interests. For example, the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a responsibility to consider scientific information provided from scientific advisory committees, stakeholder groups, EPA's own scientific staff, and public opinion, but final decisions on the laws EPA is charged with carrying out (such as The Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act) often lie with the administrator. Such high levels of authority on decisions sometimes mean that political appointees inappropriately suppress, alter, or otherwise undermine the scientific process or scientific conclusions for political, financial, or ideological reasons—what we refer to as political interference in science-based decision-making. On 17 December 2010, President Obama's science advisor, John Holdren, issued a memorandum directing federal agencies to develop and implement scientific integrity policies ([ 2 ][2]). The memo was intended to help agencies guard against instances of political interference in science-based decision-making ([ 3 ][3]). Violations of scientific integrity observed during the prior administration (for example, censorship of federal scientists, manipulation of scientific assessments, and career scientists being entirely cut out of the policy process) made clear how vulnerable science was to politicization and why the “Holdren memo” was needed ([ 4 ][4]). Twenty-eight federal agencies and departments now have scientific integrity policies. One could argue that all parts of the federal government should have scientific integrity policies in place because all parts of the government deal with technical evidence in some capacity; however, existing policies cover the vast amount of federal work involving scientific data collection and research as well as use of science in regulatory processes. Because the Holdren memo was intended to give agencies flexibility with assigning roles and responsibilities and establishing specific procedural aspects of how the policy is implemented, the scientific integrity policies vary in the comprehensiveness of their protections, and gaps remain ([ 5 ][5]). For example, White House officials and political appointees at federal agencies still have a great deal of protection if they choose to politicize science-based information. Weaknesses in scientific integrity policies were made glaringly apparent by the Trump administration. The Union of Concerned Scientists has documented more than 180 instances of political interference in science, far more than 98 instances under George W. Bush and 22 under Barack Obama ([ 6 ][6]). The cases range from manipulating scientific data on COVID-19 to censoring scientists from using “evidence-based” and “climate change” in agency documents. In a 2018 survey, federal scientists themselves also detailed the damage to science-based decision-making, reporting widespread political interference in science-based decision-making processes ([ 7 ][7]). Why did these problems occur despite scientific integrity policies at every science agency? The Trump era has revealed that scientific integrity policies vary in their strength across agencies, and enforcement mechanisms are challenging to implement when senior-level officials violate the policies. Scientific integrity policies and other infrastructure, such as related committees and scientific integrity officials, have been hugely effective at addressing issues before they become formal violations and empowering federal employees with paths for allegations, investigations, and resolution of scientific integrity issues. But recent years have brought to light policy gaps and proven that policy constraints and power dynamics make it challenging to hold agency leaders accountable when they themselves violate the policy. What do you do if science agency heads are hostile to science? Fortunately, lessons learned in the past two decades can provide guideposts. Congress can help bring science back to the forefront of policy decisions, such as through passage of the Scientific Integrity Act, which would codify many of the key provisions of scientific integrity policies. Here, we focus on initial steps the Biden administration could take to address these vulnerabilities and meet the administration's stated goal to build a stronger federal science enterprise. ### Let scientists speak The Biden administration should continue to follow through on its campaign promise to “listen to the scientists.” This will elevate scientific voices but will not magically solve society's challenges. The process by which science informs policy decisions is a complex, value-laden social process and is affected by both scientists and nonscientist actors. Especially in what some have labeled as the “post-truth” era, the Biden administration will have to figure out how to navigate scientific and societal complexities to effectively make progress on science-based issues. Allowing federal scientists to inform the public, however, is a good initial step. The Biden administration should grant all federal scientists the right to speak freely to the public and media about their scientific work and expertise. Agencies may choose to designate official spokespeople or ask scientists to include a disclaimer that they are not speaking on behalf of the agency, but federal scientists should not need permission to answer a reporter call or post on their personal social media page. Some argue that such freedoms could lead to the spread of misinformation from rogue scientists, but evidence of such concerns has not materialized. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for example, has for years had a permissive media policy without a major issue. NOAA allows its scientists to speak with reporters without preapproval from political staff or public affairs. By contrast, other agencies require scientists to get explicit advanced permission to speak with journalists. Additionally, any dissenting views aired by individuals speaking out could be addressed with transparent decision-making and by policies that explicitly allow for expression of differing scientific opinions by agency scientists, as discussed below. The novel coronavirus pandemic has made clear the need for timely scientific communication from authoritative government sources and the consequences for public health when science is silenced. Fewer U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention press briefings, Dr. Anthony Fauci being blocked from interviews with major television networks, scientific guidance documents with political manipulation, and blatant misinformation from the U.S. president all underscore the vital importance of access to federal science and scientists, especially in crises. ([ 8 ][8]). Following its scientific integrity policy review, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) should direct science agencies to modify existing policies to explicitly grant technical experts the freedom to speak to the media and public without needing approval from political leadership and public affairs staff. And at agencies within larger departments, such as NOAA within the Department of Commerce, that mandate must apply up the chain of command and be adhered to by all political staff, even the heads of agencies and departments ([ 9 ][9]). ### Make scientific integrity more powerful After its review of scientific integrity policies, OSTP should protect government science and scientists by directing federal agencies to strengthen their scientific integrity infrastructure to provide clear and consistent scientific integrity policies at every science agency. Currently, only some agencies have strong scientific integrity infrastructure in place, including a full-time scientific integrity official, a scientific integrity board to help adjudicate potential violations, and scientific integrity liaisons dispersed throughout the agency to help other employees understand the policy. The Trump administration's record of abuses to science, survey responses from thousands of federal scientists, and inconsistencies across policies between agencies provide important data about what works and what does not when it comes to protecting science and scientists from politicization ([ 10 ][10]). A challenge that stands out is agencies' inability to enforce and hold accountable senior-level political officials who violate policies. Although many federal agencies have scientific integrity officers, some do not. And even where scientific integrity officers exist, they often do not have power to hold political officials accountable for missteps. The Biden administration should follow through on its mandate that all agencies conducting or dealing with scientific work have a full-time scientific integrity officer dedicated to training federal employees, investigating scientific integrity allegations, and enforcing scientific integrity policies. Further, the Biden administration should require that all scientific integrity policies have explicit language to protect scientists and their work from interference from political officials, external stakeholders, or anyone else. Such protections can be tackled at both ends of the problem: by better protecting scientists involved through transparency measures, process changes, and opportunities for reporting and by holding wrongdoers accountable, including and especially senior political officials. The latter point is crucial because many Trump-era issues stemmed from high-level political appointees. The Biden administration must ensure that scientific integrity officers can hold these senior leaders accountable for violations of scientific integrity. This could occur by granting agency scientific integrity officers the authority to work closely with agency inspectors general offices, which currently do not generally coordinate with scientific integrity offices. This would empower scientific integrity officers and increase opportunities for holding senior officials accountable because inspectors general offices operate more independently from agency leadership than do scientific integrity offices in existing structures. ### Let scientists dissent The Trump administration ignored the recommendations of technical experts in numerous cases in which long-standing processes require the input of those experts. This was the case even where the law is clear that science must be the sole basis for decisions (such as the listing and delisting of endangered species). For example, in 2020 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) moved forward and delisted the gray wolf across the United States, ignoring every scientist who peer reviewed FWS's delisting proposal. Those scientists were left with little recourse to ensure that the administrative record reflected the best available science rather than being restricted to the scientific evidence that was politically expedient. The scientists could provide public comment on the delisting decision, although the Trump administration was notorious for also ignoring such comments. Scientists now have one way to move forward to ensure that this decision reflects the best available science: fight the decision through the court system. One tool that the Biden administration could put in place is Dissenting Scientific Opinion policies at federal science agencies. Such policies allow scientists who were directly involved in a policy decision to write a dissenting scientific opinion for the public record. These opinions can prove useful in subsequent litigation and could discourage political leadership from ignoring scientists in the first place. Such protections will also be helpful in the event that political appointees burrow into career positions with the intention to continue hostility toward science from within the government. For example, an EPA Dissenting Scientific Opinion filed by a senior career official in September 2020 revealed the extent to which science and scientists were ignored in the development of an EPA rule that restricts the agency's use of scientific studies relying on nonpublic data. Such information provides new insight on internal scientific integrity challenges and may be an important data point in anticipated litigation around the rule. Only three agencies (the EPA, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and U.S. Department of Energy) have Dissenting Scientific Opinion policies ([ 4 ][4]). ### Hire more scientists The Biden administration must address the drain of scientific experts from federal agencies. An analysis from The Washington Post estimated that 1600 federal scientists left their post under the Trump administration ([ 11 ][11]). According to The Washington Post 's analysis, this loss of scientists represents a 1.5% decrease, whereas an 8% increase in scientific staffing was seen during the same time under the Obama administration. Another analysis from the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative reported that the EPA's total workforce was down by 16% in 2018 compared with 2013, and 21% in 2018 compared with an all-time peak in staffing at the agency during 2000 ([ 12 ][12]). That these losses present a problem is corroborated by our survey of federal scientists, in which capacity constraints were deemed a key barrier to making science-based decisions at the agencies ([ 6 ][6]). The White House should prioritize building scientific capacity across the government, both in its science and technology budget and hiring plans. One way the administration should boost science capacity and recruit talented early-career STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) experts is by focusing on science fellowships. Hiring of fellows can help to bolster scientific capacity faster than the normal government hiring processes. OSTP should reestablish the STEM track for the Presidential Management Fellowships or expand fellowship awards in federal programs such as those in Sea Grant. The Trump administration's hostility toward science may have long-lasting impacts that deter qualified job candidates from applying. Therefore, the administration should consider additional incentives, such as skills training, fast-track promotions based on merit, and measures aimed at boosting applications from scientists of color and others from underrepresented backgrounds. ### Revive independent science advice The Biden administration must restore independent science advice to federal agencies. Federal science agencies depend on external experts who provide guidance through their service on federal advisory committees. During the past 4 years, many advisory committees have been inactive, and some have been disbanded or stacked with appointees who are unqualified or have conflicts of interest ([ 13 ][13]). Then-President Trump also issued an executive order that required each federal agency to arbitrarily cut the number of its advisory committees by at least one-third, with a limit of 350 committees across the government. President Biden should rescind this executive order immediately so that advisory committees can continue to be formed or disbanded as decided by agencies rather than political mandate ([ 14 ][14]). President Biden should issue an executive order that improves the integrity and transparency of federal advisory committees. Currently, management of conflicts of interest around advisory committees is not sufficiently transparent and is inconsistently enforced. A Biden executive order should direct the Office of Government Ethics to update its guidelines on conflicts of interest for advisory committee members and federal agencies to provide explicit and transparent guidance describing how they set up advisory committees, vet nominees for conflicts of interest, and decide on member composition ([ 15 ][15]). The order should require agencies to extend disclosure requirements so that committee members provide information on past employers and research funding. The order should also ask agencies to make public the roster of candidates for membership, along with details on which nominees will be representatives of a particular stakeholder group and thus not subject to government ethics requirements, and request comments regarding candidates' potential conflicts of interest. Appointments to advisory committees should also include a more diverse group of independent scientists, including scientists of color and those earlier in their careers. The previous 4 years were unprecedented in terms of obstacles and challenges surrounding science-based decision-making ([ 2 ][2]). The scientific community and the Biden administration must not write this period off as unique. The Biden administration has a lot of work to do to rebuild “better” the scientific basis of public policy decision-making. Fortunately, we have learned lessons and now know how to strengthen science-based processes to make them more resilient to such unprecedented attacks. The administration's 27 January memorandum establishes a working group to review scientific integrity policies and their implementation, reestablishes science advisory committees, and appoints chief science officers and scientific integrity officials at federal agencies to ensure that the government and its research programs are well grounded in science and technology and that decision-making is conducted with integrity. These are all important steps. President Biden said it is the will of the people to marshal the forces of science, and the people should hold him accountable to his word. 1. [↵][16]The White House, “Fact Sheet: President Biden takes executive actions to tackle the climate crisis at home and abroad, create jobs, and restore scientific integrity across federal government” (27 January 2021). 2. [↵][17]1. J. P. Holdren , “Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies” (Office of Science and Technology Policy, 17 December 2010). 3. [↵][18]1. E. Berman, 2. J. M. Carter , Journal of Science Policy and Governance 13, 1 (2018). [OpenUrl][19] 4. [↵][20]1. G. T. Goldman et al ., Science 355, 696 (2017). [OpenUrl][21][Abstract/FREE Full Text][22] 5. [↵][23]1. T. MacKinney, 2. J. M. Carter, 3. G. Reed, 4. G. Goldman , “Strengthening scientific integrity at federal agencies” (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2020). 6. [↵][24]Union of Concerned Scientists, “Attacks on science” (20 January 2017); [www.ucsusa.org/resources/attacks-on-science][25]. 7. [↵][26]1. G. T. Goldman, 2. J. M. Carter, 3. Y. Wang, 4. J. M. Larson , PLOS ONE 15, e0231929 (2020). [OpenUrl][27] 8. [↵][28]1. A. Desikan, 2. T. MacKinney, 3. G. Goldman , “Let the scientists speak: How CDC experts have been sidelined during the COVID-19 pandemic” (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2020). 9. [↵][29]1. T. Allen, 2. S. Agrawal, 3. K. Husbands Fealing, 4. E. Robinsion , “An independent assessment of allegations of scientific misconduct filed under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientific integrity policy” (National Academy of Public Administration, 2020); [https://nrc.noaa.gov/Portals/0/SIC/NOAA%20Final%20Report\_scanned\_061220.pdf?ver=2020-06-15-074029-673][30]. 10. [↵][31]1. M. Brym et al ., “Further efforts needed to uphold scientific integrity at EPA,” report no. 20-P-0173 (EPA Office of inspector General, 2020); [https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-05/documents/\_epaoig\_20200520-20-p-0173.pdf][32]. 11. [↵][33]1. A. Gowen, 2. J. Eilperin, 3. B. Guarino, 4. A. Ba Tran , ”Science ranks grow thin in Trump administration,” The Washington Post, 23 January 2020. 12. [↵][34]1. L. Frederickson et al ., “A sheep in the closet: the erosion of environmental enforcement at the EPA” (Environmental Data Governance Initiative, 2019). 13. [↵][35]1. G. Reed, 2. S. Shulman, 3. P. Hansel, 4. G. Goldman , “Abandoning science advice” (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2018). 14. [↵][36]1. G. T. Goldman , Nature 570, 417 (2019). [OpenUrl][37] 15. [↵][38]1. M. L. Kelly, 2. G. Reed, 3. G. T. Goldman, 4. J. M. Carter , Environ. Law Rev. 51, 1 (2021). [OpenUrl][39] [1]: #ref-1 [2]: #ref-2 [3]: #ref-3 [4]: #ref-4 [5]: #ref-5 [6]: #ref-6 [7]: #ref-7 [8]: #ref-8 [9]: #ref-9 [10]: #ref-10 [11]: #ref-11 [12]: #ref-12 [13]: #ref-13 [14]: #ref-14 [15]: #ref-15 [16]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference 1 in text" [17]: #xref-ref-2-1 "View reference 2 in text" [18]: #xref-ref-3-1 "View reference 3 in text" [19]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJournal%2Bof%2BScience%2BPolicy%2Band%2BGovernance%26rft.volume%253D13%26rft.spage%253D1%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [20]: #xref-ref-4-1 "View reference 4 in text" [21]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DScience%26rft.stitle%253DScience%26rft.aulast%253DGoldman%26rft.auinit1%253DG.%2BT.%26rft.volume%253D355%26rft.issue%253D6326%26rft.spage%253D696%26rft.epage%253D698%26rft.atitle%253DEnsuring%2Bscientific%2Bintegrity%2Bin%2Bthe%2BAge%2Bof%2BTrump%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1126%252Fscience.aam5733%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F28209862%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [22]: /lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEyOiIzNTUvNjMyNi82OTYiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czoyMjoiL3NjaS8zNzEvNjUzMC82NjguYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9 [23]: #xref-ref-5-1 "View reference 5 in text" [24]: #xref-ref-6-1 "View reference 6 in text" [25]: http://www.ucsusa.org/resources/attacks-on-science [26]: #xref-ref-7-1 "View reference 7 in text" [27]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DPLOS%2BONE%26rft.volume%253D15%26rft.spage%253De0231929%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [28]: #xref-ref-8-1 "View reference 8 in text" [29]: #xref-ref-9-1 "View reference 9 in text" [30]: https://nrc.noaa.gov/Portals/0/SIC/NOAA%20Final%20Report_scanned_061220.pdf?ver=2020-06-15-074029-673 [31]: #xref-ref-10-1 "View reference 10 in text" [32]: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-05/documents/_epaoig_20200520-20-p-0173.pdf [33]: #xref-ref-11-1 "View reference 11 in text" [34]: #xref-ref-12-1 "View reference 12 in text" [35]: #xref-ref-13-1 "View reference 13 in text" [36]: #xref-ref-14-1 "View reference 14 in text" [37]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DNature%26rft.volume%253D570%26rft.spage%253D417%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [38]: #xref-ref-15-1 "View reference 15 in text" [39]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DEnviron.%2BLaw%2BRev.%26rft.volume%253D51%26rft.spage%253D1%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx
领域	气候变化 ; 资源环境
URL	查看原文
引用统计
文献类型	期刊论文
条目标识符	http://119.78.100.173/C666/handle/2XK7JSWQ/314071
专题	气候变化资源环境科学
推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714	Jacob M. Carter,Gretchen T. Goldman,Andrew A. Rosenberg,et al. Strengthen scientific integrity under the Biden administration[J]. Science,2021.
APA	Jacob M. Carter,Gretchen T. Goldman,Andrew A. Rosenberg,Genna Reed,Anita Desikan,&Taryn MacKinney.(2021).Strengthen scientific integrity under the Biden administration.Science.
MLA	Jacob M. Carter,et al."Strengthen scientific integrity under the Biden administration".Science (2021).